Posted on 09/25/2016 12:17:10 PM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked
I have friends from both sides of the aisle on FB. I generally ignore their political posts, especially during elections. But I have noticed a new trend in the past week or two. The lower Hillary is in the polls, the louder, the more derisive, and the more often they are posting about Trump and his supporters.
I don't think that we are even close to seeing the meltdown of Hillary's minions.
They’ve always been unhinged.
We must examine the nature of that monopoly power very carefully. Because our constitution forbids it over human beings.
Most of my fb friends are leftists,so much so it seemed they were all Bernie supporters. They post the odd thing about Trump... and I’m assuming they are voting Hill, but they’re not excited about her in the least. The few Trump supporters I am connected with via fb, are much more virulent in their anti Hillary rants. I don’t use fb to post political stuff, I do now and then post and reply to 2nd amendment issues.
I see it too. Old good friends accusing me of being a horrible racist idiot. I don’t know how this can be repaired later.
Fascism basically allows you to own stuff, but they tell you what you can do with it.
that the light is coming through the roof, which means its got big holes in it....and a massive storm is coming!
Socialism is the idea that other people owe you something for nothing.
Democratic socialism is the idea you owe society something because you live in it--even though any such debt, to be valid, would have to apply equally in both directions, leaving a net debt of zero.
'Libertarian socialism,' a.k.a., anarcho-socialism, is the idea that other people owe you something for nothing and somehow it will all be distributed without violent overseers. History shows that to absurd:
"When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating." ~ Frédéric Bastiat
Iron law of oligarchy: "sociological thesis according to which all organizations, including those committed to democratic ideals and practices, will inevitably succumb to rule by an elite few (an oligarchy). The iron law of oligarchy contends that organizational democracy is an oxymoron. Although elite control makes internal democracy unsustainable, it is also said to shape the long-term development of all organizations—including the rhetorically most radical—in a conservative direction.
Robert Michels spelled out the iron law of oligarchy in the first decade of the 20th century in Political Parties, a brilliant comparative study of European socialist parties that drew extensively on his own experiences in the German Socialist Party. Influenced by Max Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy as well as by Vilfredo Pareto’s and Gaetano Mosca’s theories of elite rule, Michels argued that organizational oligarchy resulted, most fundamentally, from the imperatives of modern organization: competent leadership, centralized authority, and the division of tasks within a professional bureaucracy. These organizational imperatives necessarily gave rise to a caste of leaders whose superior knowledge, skills, and status, when combined with their hierarchical control of key organizational resources such as internal communication and training, would allow them to dominate the broader membership and to domesticate dissenting groups. Michels supplemented this institutional analysis of internal power consolidation with psychological arguments drawn from Gustave Le Bon’s crowd theory. From this perspective, Michels particularly emphasized the idea that elite domination also flowed from the way rank-and-file members craved guidance by and worshipped their leaders. Michels insisted that the chasm separating elite leaders from rank-and-file members would also steer organizations toward strategic moderation, as key organizational decisions would ultimately be taken more in accordance with leaders’ self-serving priorities of organizational survival and stability than with members’ preferences and demands." ~ Encyclopedia Britannica
Noting that the Founding States had decided that POTUS would not be elected by ordinary voters, the only reason that voters are now fighting over presidential candidates is the following.
Low-information voters evidently do not understand that most federal government services are based on 10th Amendment-protected state powers and associated revenues that the corrupt feds have been stealing from the states for generations.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In other words, citizens should be contacting their state representatives, not their federal representatives, to discuss problems with state-established retirement and health services for example.
Otherwise, if it weren’t for the corrupt feds stealing state powers and associated revenues, then citizens could probably be given three guesses to name the current POTUS and still not get it right.
The reason that I will gladly Vote Trump is because I think that he will listen to our complaints about unconstitutionally big federal government.
Socialist Hillary, on the other hand, would probably give us her signature cackle in response to such concerns.
Remember in November !
Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs.
Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
I saw it in CA a month ago visiting friends.
Normal people and friends of mine were saying crazy things.
I kept quiet but it was clear they were VERY unhappy how things were going.
WHO Is TRUMP?
Good stuff.
Are there any Clinton supporters? Just this morning I remarked to my wife that I have yet to see a single Clinton sticker in this pure blue state. Plenty of Bernie stickers but not a single Hillary one.
And George Orwell was a socialist too.
What are they going to do when they find out the Mooch is actually a dude, and they have been played for idiots all this time...........
That’s a damned good article. If it’s not a thread, I’m gonna post it as one.
Unfortunately, I can find no evidence that this article was authored by Roy Kaplan or was in the New Yorker magazine. This might be a hoax.
Great read, needs a bit of reformatting.
I googled it. Google doesn’t reference it. Amazon also censored my really funny Stronger Together review. It happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.